Martin Banks, Personal Computer World 09/85 - checked

December 1985:

Several hundred years ago, well it seems that long ago to me now, I wrote in this august journal about CP/M. Remember CP/M? the operating system that everybody said was now dead and gone: long live MS-DOS!!! I wrote at the time that it probably wouldn't go away that easily and that it would constitute a goodly slice of the O/S market for some time to come yet.

There were those who gently denigrated the idea at the time, so I have watched with interest over the last few months as CP/M has `surfaced' again as a front line operating system. This is through the arrival on the scene of machines like the new Amstrads and Commodores, as well as some earlier attempts such as that from Triumph Adler. CP/M not only lives, it is regaining much of its earlier importance. The object of this column is not to gloat, however. The `re-appearance' of CP/M on the front line (not that it ever went away, really) has suddenly posed an interesting problem, and I confess that is one to which I do not know the answer; neither do some people in the software industry to whom I have spoken. That problem is the legal one of copyright.

First, let us start with some background. CP/M, as we all know, was the leading general-purpose operating system for the first batch of 8-bit personal computers. Apple and Commodore had their own systems it is true, and these proved good spawning grounds for a great deal of applications software. It was for CP/M however that the majority of applications software appeared. The reasons for this are well charted. The system ran on a wide range of different computers which gave the software authors, so long as they wrote to the CP/M standards, the chance to sell their products across that whole range of machines, rather than risking the selection of just one machine type.

Several companies, such as Ashton-Tate and Micropro, got to be extremely big on the back of that possibility. There were, however, a large number of other companies and individuals who also tried this market with markedly less success. For every software company that has made a profitable business from CP/M-based sales, there are probably hundreds which have failed. The number must rise to thousands if the individuals who aspired, but failed to make company status, are included.

Most times, these companies and individuals failed for the most obvious of reasons: their products were pretty naff. Sometimes the execution of the coding was brilliant, it was just applied to the wrong idea. Sometimes however, the idea was good (and even the coding was well executed) but the product failed because the company or individual lacked the skills required to make the product survive in a cut-throat business. It is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact that, regardless of the excellence of an idea or product, it is management skills which eventually prescribe its success or failure.

So, the world is left with a whole bunch of CP/M-oriented applications software of varying quality from authors who have long since gone out of business. This would have remained a quaint, historical observation had it not been for the re-emergence of the operating system on such new machines as the Amstrad.

This beast comes with some applications already pre-configured, and it is quite possible that the majority of purchasers of the machine will be satisfied with that supply. It is part of the nature of the system however, that downloading applications software from one CP/M machine to another, regardless of the differences that may exist between them, is not all that difficult. It has to be considered likely, therefore, that people are going to do it.

To some extent it is actually encouraged, for there is already a great deal of CP/M applications software out in the public domain. This is freely available to anyone with an RS232 cable and a package like BSTAM to control the data transfer. The aspect that has struck me, and to which the legal question is applied, is not this freely available software, neither is it those users who copy the occasional application from a friend (hands up anyone who has NEVER taped a friend's record?)

The question that interests me specifically is those applications written by companies which have now gone out of business. As I have said, some of them are good packages and could, quite possibly, find a ready market amongst the new breed of CP/M users.

Therefore, what is stop a dealer who happens to have a copy of such an application from selling it? We are all aware that, should the same thing be attempted with an application written by one of the big names, the full weight of law - and the legal profession - would be down on them just as soon as they are rumbled. But what of the company which has gone out of business?

As one software seller put it to me recently, "well, you just take a calculated gamble on two things: one, you hope that they don't find out and two, that even if they do they won't have the resources to take you to court anyway."

Now, it is not my intention to accuse the software distribution and retailing industry of being full of sharks and charlatans (we all know they are truly wonderful, if miss-understood people), but even they are not going to turn down the chance of a really significant margin on a sale. If they have a copy of a program that will work on one of these new CP/M machines and the authors are now defunct, there is going to be strong temptation to try and sell a few copies, isn't there?

If the only costs they have to consider are those of a new blank disc, the photocopying of the manual (if they still have it) and the time taken to do the deed, the profits can be quite high. Only a few copies need be sold to make healthy additions to the bank balance, even if the price is just a few pounds.

And royalties to the authors? Ah well, if they don't find out and can't afford to sue anyway, who's to care. And the users who have bought these products? There could be lots of new CP/M users with a legal problem, technically speaking.

end